HP3000-L Archives

June 2000, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Michael Berkowitz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Michael Berkowitz <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:09:37 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
It is similar, but that is a use tax that is paid directly by the consumer
to the state, the bill in the California legislature would have dot com
company collect the sales tax at time of sale and then forward to the state
taxing authority.

Mike Berkowitz
Guess? Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Art Bahrs [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 10:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: OT: Re: [HP3000-L] California Enacts 'Internet' Tax


Hi Michael and Jim :)
   Isn't this basically what Idaho had when I lived there back in the '80's?
Technically if I bought something via the phone the law required I file a
form and pay sales tax on it... I can't remember the form number but I know
that I used my folk's address in Oregon alot to get around this... Dad liked
it 'cause I had to come visit them to pick up the stuff! hehe

Art "just a OT muse... " Bahrs

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Berkowitz <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] California Enacts 'Internet' Tax


> Jim Phillips writes:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Phillips [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 8:59 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: California Enacts 'Internet' Tax
>
>
> "The California State Assembly narrowly approved a measure requiring
> e-commerce companies to collect use taxes on all Internet purchases made
by
> California residents, even if the e-tailer is not based in the state. "
>
> Full story at
>
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_fosterj_news/20000601_xnfoj_california.
> shtml
> ------------------------------------
> What Jim writes is substantially correct, but not quite as wide spread as
> first glance would say.  This only applied to companies that have a brick
> and mortar presence in California, sell to a California resident, have the
> dot com company headquartered out of California, and sell substantially
the
> same merchandise in the store and on the web.  Also, accepting web returns
> at the stores further substantiates the non-difference of the stores from
> the web.  Also, it would appear that this also affects traditional mail
> order.
>
> And just so you know this would affect Guess? Inc. directly.
>
> Mike Berkowitz
> Guess? Inc.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2